American Revolution history revisionist and steadfast Phil Robertson supporter Sarah Palin admitted this week that she hadn't read the "Duck Dynasty" star's GQ interview when she defended the Louisiana duck hunting millionaire against those outraged about what he said. In fact, while people on both sides of the issues (homosexuality as a sin, whether or not pre-Civil Rights Act blacks were better off, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and whether or not the Nazis and communists would have had better regimes had they known Jesus Christ) had read Robertson's comments and delivered their opinions on such, Palin had decided to simply go with her gut instinct.
As Yahoo News reported Dec. 24, Sarah Palin told Fox News Channel's "On The Record with Greta van Susteren": “I haven’t read the article. I don’t know exactly how he said it."
Palin uttered her admission after defending again Robertson's right to free speech. Van Susteren had pressed the issue that the reality show star had used language that was both graphic and offensive. That was the moment Palin decided that she might not be on solid ground and admitted she hadn't actually read Robertson's comments in GQ that sparked a national controversy, a controversy helped along by both the informed and, as now can be seen, the uninformed.
Because as soon as the groups like GLAAD and the NAACP voiced their outrage at Robertson's seeming intolerant comments, the chronically ill-informed, like Sarah Palin and Texas senator Ted Cruz, began defending his rights of free speech and his right to his religious views against the "intolerants" (apparently people and groups like GLAAD and NAACP that bridle at open intolerance).
But nobody actually said Phil Robertson didn't have a right to either, just that he was showing his ignorance and bolstering his open bigotry with his religious beliefs.
Still, Sarah Palin helped lead the charge of the outraged (as it turned out, mostly conservatives) in defense of Phil Robertson and his apparent honesty with a GQ reporter. And that would have been well and good had Sarah Palin known of what she was speaking. (Even Jon Stewart at "The Daily Show" noted that Phil Robertson had every right to his opinions and the right to state them, regardless of content and whether or not they offended.) However, she did not. She had no idea what Robertson had said. And yet, she defended what he said.
On Facebook, she wrote shortly after the controversy started: "Free speech is an endangered species. Those “intolerants” hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us."
To say that Sarah Palin was ill-informed on the issue would be a misnomer. She was totally uninformed -- not simply ill-informed -- when she espoused her opinion, supporting a position with complete ignorance of the content of that position.
But, then, what can one expect from the woman who continued to give speeches about "death panels" even after it was branded 2009's "Lie of the Year"?
There is such a thing as blind allegiance or unqualified trust, but Sarah Palin's propensity for backing the indefensible or making ill-informed, uninformed, and ridiculous comments are only exceeded by Rep. Michele Bachmann (and, as Matt Taibi at Rolling Stone so incisively pointed out in 2012, that particular congresswoman is "bats*** crazy"). And although Fox News Channel continues to employ her as a contributor, there is such a thing as credibility, something Palin lacks. From her insisting that Paul Revere warned the British that the British were coming during his famous nighttime ride to the "death panels" set up by the Affordable Care Act to this latest incident of not knowing what she's talking about, Sarah Palin has proven again and again that her own comments are not credible.
Because when you insist on preaching the unsubstantiated, that's going just a bit too rogue for reasonable people...